Talk:World 4/@comment-27862274-20180101030223/@comment-28069733-20180107100651
@TenkouKuugen @Qu33k Know that when I make a statement, I'm not doing it in a half-assed manner. I'm not one to remain stuck with one setup and am constantly exploring new ideas that comes with mechanic changes. The idea of 1CV setups has so many holes in it that it brings Swiss cheese to shame, it's like I'm dealing with people who are still living in 2015 here. While I'm at it, I'll just point out the flaws of Jumpie's setup as well. # Carrier Shelling is way more superior compared to a battleship. Just by simply using the example Jumpie has provided, alone already has 160 shelling power just with a single named torpedo bomber. The Fusous have roughly 155~ firepower, without including the improvements. This wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't the fact that the cap has been raised to 180, which the majority of the battleships fail to capitalize on. # The goal of bringing battleships with AP shells or carriers in the first place, is to effectively take down all other enemies that aren't installation. This is due to the fact that ships with cannot consistently take down the heavier targets, while it's easy for AP shell equipped battleships and carriers to do so. With the carriers being multi-functional, they are statistically superior in their job of making sure the installation remains alone during the night. Heck, even a well placed lucky shot can instantly destroy the installation boss due to all the bonuses you can get from proficiency. # Let's not ignore the fact that carriers have preemptive attacks. While people look down on it being useless against the more heavier targets, that is not the point of airstrikes. Nothing is more irritating than the fact that your heavier ships targets the weak fodders, while your opponent keep oneshotting your ships one by one. Even if it doesn't kill the heavier ships outright, it weakens them enough that you no longer have to DA/CI them for a kill. # Some people are encouraged to bring seaplane bombers to deal with node F, hence forsakes CVs and uses BBVs, but why in the world does it matter whether you get a D-rank or not? The opponent's preemptive torpedo attacks cant be stopped (not like they will ever hit you anyway), you're not forced to retreat if you get a D-rank and its not like you're running 4-5 under low morale. In fact, using seaplane bombers runs the risk that a Tsu-class obliterates the slot, rendering them unable to perform artillery spotting. # A Tsu-class has a proportional shotdown of 22.75% and a fixed shotdown of 15. Undeniably, the risk exists for using carriers, but once you realize that the chance of a fixed shotdown is only an 1/12 chance every time, it shows that people are simply over-exaggerating what the Tsu-class is capable of. # The only legitimate reason to use it would be to conserve bauxite. But remember that conserving only works properly if your new comp is just as successful as a prior comp, because I can't call it conserving if you save up one thing, yet end up having to use more buckets and resources on other areas due to your insistence on saving bauxite. People have the right to do whatever they think that works the best for them, but that doesn't change the fact that the idea behind it is ridiculous. He wants to optimize his LD setup, so I'm pointing out that the setup is flawed to begin with. I have proven my point, but whether people is willing to listen or not is a different story.